As always, I really love to dive into your web site. You are correct in
pointing out that I probably meant to say _against_ rather than _toward_. I
Software engineers want to work on interesting
491730 - technology; but, KM is not interesting, because there isn't
491731 - knowledge.
I recall letting that line of reasoning go without comment when it started.
I do recall the meeting at SRI -- not, BTW: an SRI meeting, but a DKR
meeting held at SRI -- in which the notion that there isn't enough knowledge
regarding KM; Eric stated something akin to that when he said _he_ didn't
know enough about it in one of his Unrev2 posts.
I do not believe that I know enough about KM, but I do not consider myself
one who believes that there isn't enough knowledge *out there* on which to
begin a learning exercise. In fact, there may be far too much knowledge out
there. Sorting through it all is the tough part.
We have choices. We can appeal to the philosophers in search of some
*roots* on which to layer our efforts. We can follow other, so called
*failed* efforts (Notes, according to your records), or we can just go off
and invent our own and see if that *fails* as well. I, speaking personally,
am inclined to learn as much about pragmatic thinking by way of C.S. Peirce
as I can, with the thought that this might provide sufficient roots to get
What is happening here is that we are, IMHO, ignoring the teachings of the
one individual who might just know more about the topic than we do, Doug.
Case in point: I suspect that the SRI meetings seduced us into believing
that *we* would just start out and design and build an OHS all by ourselves.
That effort culminated in the meeting at which folks began to conjecture
that there isn't enough knowledge to do KM, even when you were sitting in
the same meeting and you had been doing it for umpteen years. Gads.
We continue to confuse the notion of *Open Source Software* with the notion
of homebrew software. I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that Doug
ever had any notion of homebrew software. His goal, near as I can tell, was
and remains to create a body of software that is *Open Source*, and that has
a radically different and specific meaning from the notions of free software
that is hacked by thousands of individuals the world over, even though those
projects do, indeed, result in open source products. It appears, at least to
me, that a professionally managed project in which contributors receive
compensation for software development is a greatly different project than
one managed and built by volunteers.
We must insulate ourselves from ruminations of those who write proposals for
research funding and who need to play down some field as a justification for
further exploration of it or to bias the thinking of others. I make no
statements of fact here, just the sweeping generalization that our biases
occasionally can be driven by needs other than those related to purely
----- Original Message -----
From: Rod Welch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 9:14 PM
Subject: [unrev-II] Plan for HyperScope-OHS launch and development
> Thanks for important perspective on developing KM. Here is some
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify email@example.com
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIfirstname.lastname@example.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 08:16:43 PST